An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of AssentNewman, John Henry
Religion
An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent
Newman, John Henry
Faith; Theism
I will add, that, if we deal with arguments in the mere letter, the
question of the authorship of works in any case has much difficulty.
I have noticed it in the instance of Shakespeare, and of Newton. We
are all certain that Johnson wrote the prose of Johnson, and Pope the
poetry of Pope; but what is there but prescription, at least after
contemporaries are dead, to connect together the author of the work and
the owner of the name? Our lawyers prefer the examination of present
witnesses to affidavits on paper; but the tradition of “testimonia,”
such as are prefixed to the classics and the Fathers, together with the
absence of dissentient voices, is the adequate groundwork of our belief
in the history of literature.
3. Once more: what are my grounds for thinking that I, in my own
particular case, shall die? I am as certain of it in my own innermost
mind, as I am that I now live; but what is the distinct evidence on
which I allow myself to be certain? how would it tell in a court of
justice? how should I fare under a cross-examination upon the grounds
of my certitude? Demonstration of course I cannot have of a future
event, unless by means of a Divine Voice; but what logical defence can
I make for that undoubting, obstinate anticipation of it, of which I
could not rid myself, if I tried?
First, the future cannot be proved _à posteriori_; therefore we
are compelled by the nature of the case to put up with _à priori_
arguments, that is, with antecedent probability, which is by itself no
logical proof. Men tell me that there is a law of death, meaning by law
a necessity; and I answer that they are throwing dust into my eyes,
giving me words instead of things. What is a law but a generalized
fact? and what power has the past over the future? and what power has
the case of others over my own case? and how many deaths have I seen?
how many ocular witnesses have imparted to me their experience of
deaths, sufficient to establish what is called a law?
But let there be a law of death; so there is a law, we are told, that
the planets, if let alone, would severally fall into the sun—it is the
centrifugal law which hinders it, and so the centripetal law is never
carried out. In like manner I am not under the law of death alone,
I am under a thousand laws, if I am under one; and they thwart and
counteract each other, and jointly determine the irregular line, along
which my actual history runs, divergent from the special direction
of any one of them. No law is carried out, except in cases where it
acts freely: how do I know that the law of death will be allowed its
free action in my particular case? We often are able to avert death by
medical treatment: why should death have its effect, sooner or later,
in every case conceivable?
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account